News reporting on British TV

An interview is not the same as news, the fault is with rolling news, there was a time we watched the news at six and nine, now they have twenty four hours to fill.

Because Corbyn claimed it was false news it shouldn't be questioned when there is talk in Westminster there are moves to get rid of him again.

The queen gets a cold, do they settle for the queen has a cold? No they trot to buck house,breporter, camera man and heaven knows who else for the reporter to stand with Buck house in the background to say - the queen has a cold

Infuriating isnt it?

I suppose the "good" thing to come out of all of this, is that people are now waking up to the fact that it isnt just newspapers that have agendas' and bias.

The BBC did it to Jeremy Corbyn this morning. At one point the interviewer asked him about reports that he was planning to resign the Labour Party leadership. Corbyn said very clearly that it was false news. Totally untrue. The interviewer wouldn't let it go even after Corbyn commented that he didn't think that the BBC should be reporting false news. The question was repeated in various ways at least half a dozen times. How many times was Corbyn supposed to say that it wasn't true?

The interview was supposed to be about the Brexit vote btw.

Piers Morgan is the best reason yet for avoiding GMB (and any other programme he's involved in!).

JackyB, very interesting.

At the time, and obviously we were all somewhat younger, I took whatever TV news said, whichever station, as the absolute truth.
And have done all these years up until about 2 years ago.

I havent watched Good Morning Britain in years.

Now that Piers Morgan is part of it, I had sort of assumed that it would be balanced against some of the other ITN stuff.

Out of interest I have looked on the GMB website.
www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain

It says on there too about teachers wearing body cameras[I havent clicked on the video link about it].

I saw a prime example of news being altered to fit what the programme wanted to say on Good Morning Britain this morning.

The headline was 'Teachers wearing body cameras'. The interviewed a headmaster at a school that had introduced body cameras. He was interviewed in a corridor and made it very clear that the cameras were not worn by teachers but by the lunchtime supervisors who had difficulty identifying young people who were behaving inappropriately. By catching the behaviour on camera the young people could be challenged later. Made perfect sense to me.

Half an hour later they ran the same story. This time the interviewer was in a classroom. Again the headline was 'Teachers wearing body cameras'. The headmaster was there again with the camera around his neck but this time no one spoke to him and he was simply used as a model for the camera.

The first interview made it clear that the body cameras were not used by teachers but that didn't fit with story they obviously wanted so they changed the way the report was done and made it seem that teachers were indeed wearing body cameras in class.

During the Falklands war, I was quite shocked when I visited my parents and saw the BBC coverage of the war. It was so biased - little more than propaganda.

We were given a completely different picture in Europe (presumably more impartial, as they weren't involved).

I can't remember the details now, but it has made me very wary of any news I read or heard since.

Looks like you'll just have to keep doing what you do Ankers.

Ana, because I, like several others, listen to various TV sources.
Then you soon spot stuff, sometimes chunks, that is left out. And it is soon very easy to see the bias.

whitewave - a segment in itself should be unbiased we would hope.

At least, that is what I want. Perhaps others dont? I have never really thought about that. Some people may be perfectly happy to absorb biased news. I dont know.

The stories have to be edited otherwise some might last for hours and you would lose the will to live

How do you know they are 'leaving out bits' Ankers if none of them is telling the whole story?

None of our TV news channels are impartial and don't get me started on print media. We're only told what the powers that be want us to know. The last thing anyone in power wants is for us to hear all sides of an story and come to our own conclusions.

Yes they would and do Welshwife. Thank you.
Channel 4 leaves out bits, and ITN leaves our loads. By comparison, the BBC doesnt seem as bad

Shame really. It is tedious to keep checking what you are listening to.

I often watch other news channels too - we have a freesat box and the BBC News channel is on 200 - the next few programmes up the numbers are Sky and Aljazeera and such as CNN but there is also a French 24 channel which is a news channel in English and it also has some other interesting programmes on too. Any of those would maybe give a slightly different perspective.